Historically, women have been preyed upon and exploited using hypnosis
far more than most would ever suspect or would
even dare to imagine.

The art of hypnosis has been around quite literally for thousands of years, albeit under various forms and many different names. After centuries of occult status in the Far East and the Middle East, it was German physician Franz Anton Mesmer who has been credited for its introduction into western society in the mid-late 1700s, under the errant notion of animal magnetism. It was soon dubbed as "Mesmerism," however, it wasn't until the 1800s when it would finally gain notoriety with the public and academicians. The term hypnotism is thought to have come from Scottish surgeon and magnetizer James Braid, however, it was reportedly first coined by French magnetizer Etienne de Cuvillers and then later adopted by Braid in 1841. The terms hypnosis and hypnotism have remained to this day.

Early on its human value was very intriguing to some of the forward thinkers in the medical field at the time, but sadly enough there were others who held a deeper interest in its potential immoral value. Unfortunately a great many unscrupulous male practitioners of the era were the first to recognize that hypnosis can be used as an extraordinarily persuasive behavior modifier and sexual control tool, one that can be used deviously and immorally on unsuspecting women. There were numerous reports of sexual abuse using hypnosis in the 1800's, so it really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that man today might possibly still harbor those same fervent, yet deviant, carnal desires.

Hypnotism gained notoriety in the 1800's, especially so for misuse against women.

The multitude of well documented, sexual misconduct cases displayed on this page (shown at right), along with the number of hypnosis facts also listed, should prove beyond any shadow of doubt that this formidable tool is still being used to this day to incapacitate and abuse women (and children) with.

Over the years the acceptance of hypnotism has had its many trials, but Scottish surgeon James Esdaile is one of many who are noted for proving its medical viability in the 1800's by using it as a pain depressant, instead of traditional anesthesia. He first did this in 1845 while working for the East India Company. He was reported to have performed 345 such major surgeries. It was also used for dental procedures, and even for childbirth.

As the reputation for hypnotism grew to new heights in the 19th and 20th centuries, the field would eventually be taken to new lows in the 1950's by the CIA, through its nefarious MKULTRA mind control program and its ensuing, heinous experimental programs, all of which focused specifically on the darker science of psychologically programming humans. This task was accomplished through the involuntary repetitive brainwashing of test subjects, along with rigorous stress related conditioning. This covert, illegal program was deemed a huge success before reportedly being taken underground. (see more on MKULTRA at History.com)

An even darker aspect came about as an offshoot of MKULTRA, through a program codenamed Project Monarch, one which was reported to have created programmed & conditioned sex slaves, to be used for political blackmail and personal entertainment.  (see: Cathy O'Brien, Brice Taylor, Annie McKenna)

The sex slave trade is a vast and growing dark enterprise. One example would be a 2015 sting that yielded many people willing to buy a sex slave, despite the fact they already knew it was illegal and expressly against the girl's will. (Find more on this story here and here. See YouTube video here.) This type of crime is very real.

Consider the power of hypnosis for those involved in sex-slaves and trafficking, not to mention the porn industry. What is the dollar value of having girls programmed to participate, without resisting or trying to run away? A girl programmed against her will, to be submissive. As horrible and humanly unfair as that sounds, it is sadly enough very possible through the use of hypnosis. (Despite being overtly inhumane, morally wrong and highly illegal.)

Despite its long storied history, there are still some nay-sayers who maintain that hypnosis is not even real, however... the true fact of the matter is this, that the greater preponderance of these deniers are people who have never ever been successfully hypnotized in their life, nor have they ever even taken the time to research the subject. These doubters of hypnotism try as best as they can to deny the existence of such a mysterious science, despite being grossly uneducated, and/or blatantly ignorant in regards to the actual reality of this mental phenomenon. This is very much akin to those who used to scoff at the notion of string theory and quantum physics. (There also used to be a day when people actually thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it.)

The 21st century truth of the matter is this - that hypnotism is indeed regarded as very real, both academically and in many scientific circles, and has been verified many decades ago as a legitimate medical and psychological tool. In fact, a 2016 Stanford University research study has now identified physical changes taking place inside the brain during hypnosis, further cementing its standing in the scientific medical community as a very real psychological tool.

However, we are into a new millennium and yet the hypnosis giants of the profession still cannot agree on how or why hypnosis works, to this very day. We have many who will openly pontificate one way or the other, citing study after study, but the truth of the matter is this... there is still no consensus opinion yet on this subject. As a matter of fact, they can't even agree as to whether trance is a non-state or an altered state of consciousness, yet somehow there have been those willing to testify against rape victims (even a 14 year old girl) in a court of law on whether or not sexual assault under hypnosis is possible. (FYI, they were all wrong.)

Given such a mixed opinion within the profession, it makes one wonder how anyone could have felt certain enough to jeopardize the outcome of a court trial.

A great deal of what is currently known by hypnosis experts is still very much speculation, supposition and conjecture, the three things that aren't supposed to be allowed in a court of law. This environment exists primarily because the researchers themselves are still trying to figure out the true nature of hypnosis. As scientists and researchers try to sort out the most relevant studies from the inconsequential or flawed studies, they have yet to postulate a conceptualized theory that not only makes scientific sense, but is something that everyone can finally embrace once and for all as a basis for hypnosis.

We're literally just coming out of the dark ages when it comes to hypnosis. It could very well be compared to the space program era of the 1950's. We knew a few things about space back then, but nothing at all like we now know today.

With that said, hypnosis researchers have created an industry problem out of their own duplicity and/or ignorance. They have myopically ignored the data at hand, the overwhelming number of subjects abused under hypnosis, as they purport to theorize why such abuse is impossible. As crazy as that sounds, it's absolutely true and many hypnosis researchers have been doing it for years.

In a corporate research environment, such a thing just doesn't happen. Tenacious researchers don't overlook the elephant in the room and they don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the hypnosis field has readily done for decades. When competent researchers see an inordinate amount of data that points in one direction (hypnosis rape), they don't look the other way, as hypnosis researchers have done. Instead, the competent researcher embraces the data for what it is and attempts to understand it and then explain it. A good researcher will work to reconcile the data immediately, instead of conjuring theories as to why the data should not exist. This has been the Achilles' heal for the hypnosis profession for too many years. It seems clear that the profession as a whole does not want to admit nor recognize that hypnosis can indeed be used for very dark purposes.

As a direct result, the single biggest misconception to this day regarding hypnotism is the powerful hold that it can actually have over people. There are still far too many hypnosis professionals who naively and/or ignorantly claim that "people under hypnosis won't do anything they wouldn't do in normal life." 

This is absolutely, 100-percent not true. As you read on, you will understand.

The originations of this brutal fallacy stem from two noted historical figures from the hypnosis community, Martin Orne and Milton Erickson. These two men have literally done more harm to hypnosis by getting one simple thing absolutely wrong - the question of whether or not criminal or antisocial behavior is actually capable from a subject who is under hypnosis / in trance. These men are perhaps the most responsible for propagating the idea that bad things cannot happen under hypnosis. They couldn't possibly have been any more wrong. The tragedy in all of this is that a great many innocent women and children have suffered horribly over the years as a direct result of this horrendously short-sided mistake by two men that should have known better.

Before delving into the world of hypnosis and trance, Martin Orne was best known for his early pioneering studies into demand characteristics, The Social Psychology of the Psychological Experiment, which focused on the issues of research participants being aware that they are part of a psychological study and then still expecting them to behave as they would normally. Orne believed that the research participants would always tell the researcher what they wanted to hear, in the hopes of pleasing them. Unfortunately he carried this same concept into his theories on hypnosis which led to some wrongful assumptions. Orne mistakenly concluded that hypnotized people were merely acting the exact same way that a person would under demand characteristics. What Orne seemed to conveniently dismiss was the fact that a cognitive research participant, acting freely under their own volition, is greatly different from that of a hypnotized subject. Orne's desire to learn about antisocial behavior under hypnosis, by replicating other positive studies, fell prey to the influence from his long held beliefs in demand characteristics.

In essence, Orne had made the very same mistake as Mesmer did 200 years before him, by misguidedly carrying his previous research into his newer unrelated research on the theories of hypnosis and trance. Orne's belief in demand characteristics bias is as unrelated to hypnosis as Mesmer's previous field of magnetism was. An argument could be made that both men did not further the understanding of hypnosis, as much as they actually hindered it.

When it comes to Milton Erickson, he compounded the hypnosis argument by simply becoming one of the greatest hypnotists ever known to humankind. Erickson was revolutionary to the field and was extremely gifted in his understanding of the art of hypnosis, however, his studies on antisocial behavior under hypnosis were said to be remarkably poor in their concept as well as their overall planning. Many of his peers were quite adamant that Erickson's position was critically flawed right from the start, due to his poor research protocols, most notable being his opposition stance to altering a subject's perceptions when it came to encouraging antisocial behavior under hypnosis.

While Erickson was said to have tested around 50 extremely somnambulistic subjects in 1939, he failed miserably in his efforts to get them to perform criminal or antisocial behavior because he did not do one extremely critical thing... he did not attempt to alter the perceptions of his subjects, as did many other researchers who performed the same type of experiments (Rowland, Wells, Watkins). Erickson simply asked them to do immoral bad things straight away, at which point his subjects became very agitated and uncomfortable, and they understandably fought and resisted.

Because of this monumental oversight, Erickson's research falls far short when it comes to assessing the possibility of antisocial behavior under hypnosis.

Author Samuel Glasner had this to say about Erickson's experiments regarding the possibilities of anti-social and/or criminal activity under hypnosis:

"As a matter of fact, anyone familiar with the highly sophisticated techniques and daring conceptions which Erickson uses in most of his experiments must be struck with the unimaginative planning and impoverished methodology which he used in these experiments on the antisocial use of hypnosis."

Suffice to say, because of the obvious shortcomings in conducting his research, Erickson was undeniably very wrong regarding the ability to use hypnosis for abuse or criminal activity.

It has to be noted that a significant majority of their highly credentialed peers at the time were adamantly opposed to the positions of both Orne and Erickson, and yet the influence of two men who had it all wrong somehow still lingers to this day. It's hard to argue which of the two has had the worst influence on hypnosis, however, due to his notoriety as a highly esteemed hypnotist, Erickson's views apparently seem to carry the most weight to this day.

The stance shared by these two notable hypnosis pioneers, Orne and Erickson, on the issue of antisocial behavior under hypnosis, was greatly juxtaposed by the following legendary hypnosis researchers, who all stated unequivocally that hypnosis abuse is absolutely 100% possible.

  • Albert Moll

  • Milton Kline

  • Erica Fromm

  • Wesley Wells

  • Loyd Rowland

  • John G. Watkins

  • Andre Weitzenhoffer

  • Ambroise-Auguste Liebeault

In a 1949 article titled, The Production of Antisocial Acts Under Hypnosis, Weitzenhoffer stressed that in order to make someone commit a criminal act under hypnosis, "perceptions must be distorted." Success occurs 'when the subject does not perceive the situation as being antisocial.' Watkins also came to the same conclusion during the very same year.  (reference)

It is indeed very ironic that Erickson and Orne, two of the field's most prominent hypnosis pioneers, are arguably the two most responsible for today's current misunderstandings over hypnosis. Perhaps the fact that both men were reportedly linked with the CIA has something to do with that. (The possibility of a Manchurian Candidate has always been a very hot topic and an extremely sensitive issue.) It's understandable they would want to keep hypnosis a secret.

One other very significant influential critic of hypnosis was Sigmund Freud, who had difficulties grasping the nature of this new emerging phenomenon. As a result, Freud had a very dim view of hypnosis and was one of its biggest detractors. As such, he cast a negative influence over the field of hypnosis for many decades. From the late 1800s through early 1900s, many began to deny the power of hypnosis, as well as the notion of anti-social behavior while under its influence, with Freud, Erickson and Orne having the most negative impact.

The reality is, no matter how credentialed they might have been at the time, those who denied the power of hypnosis early on were 100% absolutely wrong.

For the sake of argument, it is a commonly known fact that even the most reserved or extremely shy person will lose all their inhibitions under the influence of a simple alcoholic beverage, doing and saying things they wouldn't normally do, all because of the influence of alcohol. By contrast, hypnosis is just as powerful as alcohol, but even more so, because the brain is quite capable of operation under its influence, while alcohol just makes you lose control and you forget everything.

The fact is, hypnosis can do exactly the same thing as alcohol, by allowing a person to lose all of their personal inhibitions upon a mere suggestion. This is something that has been documented many times over for many decades, and is generally the feature highlight of entertainment stage hypnosis.

Another close similarity with alcohol is hypnotic amnesia. It is absolutely possible to have a subject do things under hypnosis without ever remembering doing them. It is entirely possible to make someone forget sexual abuse under hypnosis by using it to also block all recollection of the event. The memory is still in the subconscious, but it can be repressed, making it very difficult for them to even recognize any signs of sexual abuse. (See Hypnotic Amnesia, below right.)

The list on this webpage regarding hypnotic rape (far right) clearly shows that personal morals can undeniably be fooled or altered under hypnosis. The list of criminal hypnotists posted at right inexorably and undeniably proves this.

So the comment that "people won't do under hypnosis what they won't do in real life" is more false than most people could ever realize or even possibly know, because the historical evidence clearly shows this to be an absolute myth. The dark side of hypnosis contains many examples to substantiate this point. (IE: Patty Hearst, Sirhan Sirhan, Mark David Chapman, to name but just a few.)

Many hypnotists will shamelessly continue the false longstanding allegation that "a person cannot be made to do things under hypnosis that they wouldn't normally do when not hypnotized," but those who do have the temerity to make such outrageous, erroneous claims do so primarily because of two things:

  • Their own lack of skill to do such programming to another person.

  • Their fear that people will not trust hypnotists and quit using them.

The expert hypnotist knows better than to make such a grossly unfounded claim, because they know the real truth about hypnosis and they realize that this dark reality is arguably the most serious threat to their profession.

As early as the 18th century, French magnetizer (hypnotist) Amand-Marie-Jacques de Chastenet, Marquis de Puységur, an aristocrat from one of the most prestigious families of French nobility, and thought of as one of the early founders of hypnotism, is reported to have said, "It is necessary that you bring your patient entirely into subjection; I will go so far as to say - she must not even be capable of having a will of her own."

This mentality was later echoed in the 19th century by noted French doctor Ambroise-Auguste Liebeault, the founder of the Nancy School of hypnosis and also thought of by many as one of the early founders of hypnotherapy. Liebeault had this to say about hypnosis, "We may postulate, as a first principle, that a subject during the state of hypnotic sleep is at the mercy of the operator, and carries out suggestions with the fatality of a falling stone."

Liebeault is noted for boasting of his ability over his hypnosis subjects... "They are as toys in my hands. They cannot reject the ideas imposed by the beguiler."

Also from the 19th century, Dr. Charles d'Eslon, a friend and loyal follower of Franz Anton Mesmer, was once asked by a police officer if it was possible to sexually abuse a women who had been hypnotized. He is said to have answered without hesitation, "yes." -Debay, A. Mystères du Sommeil et du Magnétisme

So, the notion that "hypnosis abuse is simply not possible" is overwhelmingly, patently, wrong. Irrevocable historical evidence to the contrary makes this undeniable and abundantly clear. (Again, see the evidence at far right.)

Make no mistake, people can be made to do things under hypnosis that they wouldn't normally do in real life, just as they do with alcohol. The other side to this premise is the fact that whatever you do naturally and willfully in life, you will most certainly do under hypnosis, if you are encouraged / told to do so.

Secondly, when it comes to things you won't do in real life, hypnosis changes that, because the simple fact of the matter is this... all you have to do under hypnosis is to switch the person's mind to the type of personality that wants to do such uncharacteristic or aberrant things.

It's really just that easy for a well trained hypnotist to do such contrary conditioning, especially with a highly somnambulistic subject.

Another widely held misconception by some people is that they themselves absolutely cannot be hypnotized, because they naively believe that they alone have a stronger mind than anyone else. This is actually not quite true. These people are perhaps not as impervious to the effects of hypnosis as they think. While they may be good at fending off "suggestion," there are many other ways to induce hypnosis that must be ruled out to declare non-hypnotizability. 

The reality is, there's a mixed argument taking place here, due to the obvious glaring fact that those who do go to a hypnotist are going with the express intention of working with the hypnotist to be hypnotized.  They are trying very hard to focus their mind, so that they can actually achieve a trance state. They are not trying to be resistant.

Second, the truth of the matter is, realistically, anyone can be hypnotized.

This topic has long been a source of much contention amongst hypnotists, who, it should be noted, generally have vastly different skill levels from one to the other, which very much needs to be considered as case trials are compared and scrutinized in regards to this claim. It also needs to be recognized that past studies on hypnosis suggestibility have clearly not captured the entirety of the issue. At present, these studies are still very much considered open for debate.

From what researchers appear to agree on, statistics say that roughly 10-15 percent of people are highly hypnotizable. There is thought to be a similar proportion for those who are less hypnotizable, while all others fall somewhere in-between at roughly 70-80 percent of the population. (The research varies.)

It doesn't take a lot of rocket science to understand that if someone is purposefully tuning out or ignoring verbal hypnotic suggestions, so as not to fall into trance, then they probably won't be hypnotized. The reality though is this - pretty much anyone can resist direct suggestion if they want to. Even a somnambulist could resist verbal suggestions, if they were aware and consciously worked at it. (As shown by Erickson's somnambulist experiments.)

To claim that someone is non-hypnotizable just because they are able to resist direct suggestion or are incapable of focusing on hypnotic suggestion is not an accurate measure of non-hypnotizability. It simply means that suggestion doesn't work for them. For the record, being resistant to suggestion is far different than being incapable of trance. Also, for the record, trance is not abnormal to the human animal. Trance is a normal brain function. Daydreaming is a very good example. 

So to say that someone can't be hypnotized - based solely off the fact that they don't react to (or are able to resist) direct verbal suggestion - is for all intents and purposes, a somewhat disingenuous proffer to make in regards to non-hypnotizability. While it is true that some people can actually be more resistant than others to hypnotic suggestion, (possibly because they don't want to be hypnotized, don't trust the hypnotist, or simply because they are not able to focus properly), that still does not 100-percent mean they can't be hypnotized.

The reality is, there are many ways to hypnotize someone into trance. It's just a simple matter of 'how to do it' for those particular people, because there are indeed many ways to achieve trance. For some people, just employing a different hypnosis technique, or perhaps an entirely new approach, is all it takes. The truth is, there are numerous ways to induce a hypnotic trance, such as an unexpected shock, confusion, or even sensory overload, to name but just a few.

As a matter of fact, a 2018 study headed by professor Max Colheart was able to increase the hypnotizability of some people through the use of Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS). It was found that this disrupted activity in part of the brain, increasing the subject's ability to be hypnotized. (Another potential aid is Hemispheric Sync , first developed by the Monroe Institute.)

To suggest that there are people who cannot be hypnotized (in any way) is to suggest that some people are physically/mentally incapable of reaching trance. This theory would appear to be antithetical to the human system, because trance very much appears as a normal part of everyday human life.

To make such a bold claim of non-hypnotizability is to suggest that there are some people who are totally immune to highway hypnosis. It would also imply that there are those who are absolutely immune to TV hypnosis, where the brain literally flips (involuntarily) from cognizant beta waves, to much slower alpha waves, within :30 seconds of turning it on. The reality is, there have to be mental avenues to trance for everyone, because it clearly appears to be a necessary function of the human brain. The sad fact is, after over 200 years, we still don't understand hypnosis or trance very well.
[See more:  Highway Hypnosis  |  What is Highway Hypnosis?  |  Television Trance ]

With all of that said, surprisingly there are still many who are willing to adamantly decree that trance is not possible for everyone, despite the limited testing and lack of significant sample size for many experiments.

According to author, Saul Marc Rosenfeld, "Not only have investigators, on the whole, been content to limit their efforts to one or two hasty trials before writing someone off as "unsusceptible," but some even went so far as to claim that research studies had conclusively demonstrated that there was no advantage to be gained from offering subjects more time to respond."

"Such claims are boldly asserted but never convincingly shown, for although a few comparative studies have been made in which people were exposed to inductions of varying length, close analysis of the procedures used reveals that there was less to these studies than meets the eye, and that they were therefore doomed from the start." -
A Critical History of Hypnotism.

Until this issue can be proven conclusively through large clinical trials, (those which exhaust all hypnosis techniques in the process), it has to be assumed that even the most resistant subject can be hypnotized. (And yes, drugs are an option for this. Scopolamine is said to work especially well for hypnosis.)

There are recent studies that say 1-in-5 are not hypnotizable, but the key is, what was the technique used to ascertain this? To be fair, the number of hypnosis techniques used to ascertain non-hypnosis is the primary question, as well as the total effort expended on each subject. The results of these tests do merit further research, however, using a much deeper base sample to reduce the margin of error and thus gain better statistical corroboration, but most importantly of all, employing the most thorough array of deep hypnosis techniques possible. This is absolutely a critical necessity. Until then, it just seems very disingenuous to say that some people absolutely cannot be hypnotized, yet the argument rages on.

Five-star generals have reportedly been reduced to babbling adolescents at the snap of a finger and a well timed hypnotic command. No one appears 100% immune to hypnotic suggestion. Again, see more on the MKULTRA program.

Perhaps the best recourse here is to recall the chilling comments of George H. Estabrooks, considered by many to be the father of the CIA's use of hypnosis. Estabrooks is remembered for having said, “I can hypnotize a man, without his knowledge or consent, into committing treason against the United States.” He made this extremely alarming comment in the early 1940s.

In his 1943 book titled Hypnotism, Dr. Estabrooks stated conclusively that by using a covert technique of relaxation, people could be hypnotized without actually knowing what is happening to them. Again, this was in the early 1940s.

The truth is, there are some people who can be (or are) more resistant to hypnosis suggestion, but that does not mean they are totally immune to trance. Again, a different hypnotic method can make all the difference in the world.

Hypnosis legend Albert Moll once said, "A person who is easily hypnotized can be hypnotized by anyone, but one who is hypnotized with difficulty can only be thrown into hypnosis by a good experimenter."

In contrast, there are those who are much more susceptible to hypnotism than others. Those who are evaluated as "somnambulistic" are far easier to put under and to take into deep coma states (the Esdaile state). Such people are extremely vulnerable to hypnotism and they take well to post-hypnotic suggestion, more so than others, and as such they are the perfect candidates for hypnotic programming and psychological brainwashing.

As a matter of fact, there have been studies that suggest physical differences in the brains of those who can be hypnotized, such as a larger rostrum (an increased size in the anterior corpus callosum), but even studies such as these have been limited in their scope and will require much further testing, with an even larger sample base for better statistical accuracy and reliability

In the 1989 book Open to Suggestion: The Uses and Abuses of Hypnosis, author Robert Temple writes the following, "For we know from many studies that approximately five-percent of the population are so hypnotizable that practically anything can be done with them, and that they can be hypnotized without knowing it or against their will. It is these people who are at risk in society from the abuses of hypnosis."

So, if you're a devious hypnotist, your primary goal is to find someone who is highly somnambulistic, because they're easiest to put into a deep trance. The success rate increases exponentially when finding someone like this.

There are many ways to put someone under using hypnosis. It does not have to be the typical, "watch the swinging pendulum" to enter into a hypnotic state.

There are other techniques, such as...

  • A deliberate staring gaze

  • Conversational hypnosis

  • Handshake rapid induction

  • Ambiguity / confusion method

  • Pulsing sound and/or vibration

  • Pulsing, flashing, strobe lights

  • Visual fixation upon an object

  • Mental fixation with an image

  • Unexpected shock w/ suggestion
    (same principle as handshake induction)

Those are but just a few examples, but the fact of the matter is this... if you're human, you can be hypnotized. Like it or not, it all simply comes down to the inferior nature of the human animal.

As a species, the human mind is innately susceptible to covert subconscious suggestion, and is even more vulnerable when placed under sensory overload conditions. It is an inherent biological component of being human. As a matter of fact, noted hypnotist Dave Elman states that a complete induction of profound hypnotic states should never take more than one or two minutes. That really says a lot as to how susceptible we are as a species.

Make no mistake about it, the human mind can be put into a deep trance state, much easier than most might think or ever suspect.

Sadly enough, it is what it is. We are not omnipotent as mortal beings. We have inherent built-in vulnerabilities and limitations that are all part of being human.

So, how can people truly feel safe, comfortable and confident using hypnosis, when the one thing they cannot control is the hypnotist's own morality?

The cold hard reality of hypnotism is basically this... the hypnotic subject is clearly at the mercy of the moral piety of the hypnotist. Trust is the absolute biggest key component of hypnotism, to know that you will be responsibly and respectfully cared for while under its effect, however, when the moral compass of the hypnotist swings wildly askew, then the subject becomes at great risk and in grave danger of being psychologically controlled and/or abused.

For these reasons, the hypnosis profession faces daunting challenges that need to be addressed and overcome before being truly trusted by the greater populace.

The one thing that some hypnotists are resistant to is indeed the one thing that would effectively give immediate credibility and credence to the hypnosis profession - that of a video recording of each hypnosis session. Due to the power of hypnosis, and because of those who have abused it, this is something that will have to become standard within the profession, before people fully embrace the medium comfortably, with complete confidence. To argue against such a safeguard is to completely ignore all past criminal history, and would be tantamount to more encouragement of a reckless environment of endangerment, raising serious questions about unethical professional standards.

One might think that the best solution is to only allow trained medical professionals to do hypnosis, but yet doctors, dentists, nurses, psychiatrists, psychologists, and even pharmacists have already abused the field of hypnosis as much as the criminal hypnotist. As a matter of fact, this perverse sexual exploitation even extends to lawyers who should legally know better, and surprisingly enough, to clergyman who should morally know better. (See list >)

So the question is...  who can you possibly trust to do hypnosis?!

There is much frustration in asking such a question, as it is somewhat rhetorical in nature. To be fair, not all hypnotists are sexual predators. Far from it. The crux of the problem though is this: deviant hypnotists have been enabled by the reputable hypnotists, those who keep saying that hypnosis abuse is not possible. By perpetuating the incorrect notion that hypnosis rape is not possible, it gives a false perception to the public that they will be safe doing hypnosis, and thus lulls many into a dangerous false sense of security. This, hands-down, unequivocally, creates the perfect environment for abuse by deviant hypnotists.

If the hypnosis profession wants to be taken seriously, they need to own up to the true power of hypnosis, and then start from within to clean up a mess that they've spent decades helping create through persistent disinformation. They have unwittingly crafted the absolute perfect environment for abuse, by forever insisting that such hypnotic deviancy is not possible. It's their lies that enable this, by creating the unsafe environment for the unscrupulous hypnotist to exploit. Those who continue to perpetuate the lie that hypnosis abuse is not possible should be held legally responsible as accessories to the crime, because they help create and foster an unsafe environment based on their false testimony of hypnosis. It's no different than if a particular drink had poison in it, and you told someone it was okay to drink, and then they got sick or died. You have to expect legal repercussions for such an irresponsible, reckless act. The hypnosis profession needs to come clean about the true dangers of bad hypnotists, or perhaps suffer a most deserved fate of endless lawsuits from its countless victims, for too many years of silence and complicity.

Sadly, even if the profession was willing to change, none of this will ever happen overnight. It's going to be very painful for many professionals to admit the truth.

Best advice: if you want 100% assurance of safety, you should always have the hypnosis session video taped. Most smart phones have the capability to do this. No one should ever subject themselves to hypnosis without a video record of the session.  [ 1) A witness could also be hypnotized, 2) audio doesn't reveal everything. ]

This is undeniably the safest recourse to take, for both the client and the hypnotist. If the hypnotist refuses, walk out immediately and seek another hypnotherapist. Don't ever accept their unverifiable verbal assurance when you already have the best viable insurance possible, a video record of the session.

The information on this website is meant to serve as direct evidence that hypnosis is indeed real and it does work. It should enlighten all who doubt the power of hypnotism, from the innocently naive to the most arrogant of the ignorant. (Although you truly never can be free of those who stubbornly and willfully wish to remain as reasoning-handicapped over hypnosis and its true medical viability.)

In summary: this effort isn't meant to damn hypnosis, just the bad hypnotists. Hypnosis can be, and is, a very beneficial tool to help aid people in life, when it is used benevolently. It already accomplishes this through many helpful programs, such as weight loss, stop-smoking programs, and even post traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD), to name but just a few of the ethical uses.

The caveat to this would be the fact that hypnotism can also be one of the most dangerous threats to humankind, if used with malevolent intent by those with unscrupulous or immoral character, particularly those in leadership positions.

As evidenced by the numerous accounts listed on this page, it is still being used today by very devious men to exploit innocent, trusting, women and children. The list of abusers on this web page alone should make this point crystal clear to anyone. Society has a very serious yet unknown problem; deviant hypnotists.

The bottom line is this: there need to be new laws that recognize and deal with this specific type of crime, otherwise it will only continue on and get worse.

May the evidence presented on this site stand as testament to the true power of hypnosis and the danger it presents to many, when used in the wrong hands. Let the truth stand in contempt and defiance of any further duplicity.

Charcot demonstrating hypnosis on a "hysterical" Salpêtrière patient, Blanche (Blanche Wittmann), who is supported by Joseph Babiński. (Wikipedia)


What is Hypnosis

What Hypnosis Does to the Brain

Note to Hypnosis Profession: It's Time to Wake Up!